Talk:Threats to Democracy
Balance Gee, can we add some balance to this article? It sounds like a moveon.org rant against the Bush administration. Hmmm. "surveillance"? "propoganda"? "FOX News?" Give me a break. The Clinton White House were experts at spinning the press, and CNN is filled with sycophantic bias towards one side of the equation. - Nhprman 17:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC) :Add away. We know that both sides of this debate have things they see as threats. Let's take a look at all of them. Chadlupkes 22:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC) :Hey, at least I managed to restrain myself from going off about Bush's reaction to the New York Times reporting on his wiretapping in the Censorship section :P --Whosawhatsis 00:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC) I object to the "progressive/conservative" labels here. We're not here to fight, or spout off partisan rhetoric, we're seeking common ground. And, considering I added point number three under what is now labeled "progressive", I have to mention that I'm not one. - Nhprman 23:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC) progressive/conservative One common weapon used in the political debate is to incorrectly label positions as "progressive" or "conservative". Don't. Its just a method to derail the conversation, and serves no constructive purpose. In the end, we are supposed to be building a better world, and we should be labelling issues as "constructive" and "destructive". Linas 00:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC) :We'll see how this evolves. What some consider threats, others consider opportunities. What some are fighting against, others are fighting for. Hopefully we'll get some good discussion. I used the labels because I see things that way. But until we need them, let's leave them out. Chadlupkes 00:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC) Media bias Let's keep snarky partisan attacks on specific news organizations out of this article, okay? It's kind of pathetic, and the Right can certainly mention CNN's bias. But that wouldn't be appropriate, either. - Nhprman 04:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC) :Almost every major media outlet in the U.S leans pretty stongly to te right, whether its CNN, Fox, or newspapers such as the New York Times -- its pretty much across-the-board, and illustrates the tremendous success that the American right wing has had in taking over and controlling the media. I don't think its "snarky" to single out CNN or Fox or any of the others as a mouthpiece of the Republican party; who, exactly, do you think would even disagree? Linas 01:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC) ::ABC, CBS, Washington Post, ect. all lean stronly to the left, they are all mouthpieces of the democratic party. In fact, 90% of the media in the US are biased towards the left. 70.48.250.45 01:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC) :::Please, tell us why you believe that. What kind of bias on what topic at what times, and what would give them balanced coverage? What exactly are you objecting to. Chadlupkes 01:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC) ::::I'm not objecting to bias, all commercials on TV are biased. Bias and propaganda is only dangerous if criticisms are censored, like in China. Coloniel 01:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC) 1POV? Should this be considered a 1POV article, and entitled to the benefits thereof? I can't see how this page could ever meet the requirements to be NPOV. I would recommend treating each 'threat to democracy' as a separate 1POV entity. And should we create a separate page for each threat, if only to ease the discussion process? Ferguson 17:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC) :I'd rather not break it up into separate articles until it gets long enough to justify that. I wouldn't object to putting a 1POV notice on it. The concept of the question itself is inherently biased in favor of Democracy. If someone is for the concept of democracy (small "d"), it's important to know what the threats against it are. If someone is against the concept of democracy, that's another issue. I don't know anyone in the US that is publically against democracy, but that doesn't mean that efforts are not being made against it. Chadlupkes 18:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC) ::Re: separate articles Ferguson 18:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC) ::I suggested separate articles just so there are separate discussion pages for each threat. I could see this page overflowing with discussion about the variety of issues ways. Just a way to focus discussion. And the 'brief' run-downs of each threat are at the same time a bit too lengthy and not fleshed out enough. For now (and I can do this right now), I would just suggest creating the separate articles and just copying and pasting the respective paragraph as a starting point for an article. ::And just as an interesting sidenote, while I'm not 'against' democracy by any means, I certainly wouldn't kill anyone for it, if you know what I mean. :I don't see a reason to 1POV it. Each threat currently looks like its own miniature 1POV unit, but I'd like to see some rebuttals to the arguments as well. --whosawhatsis? 22:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC) ::Re: 1POV & rebuttals ::I see each unit as its own 1POV unit, as well (see above). And I would like to see rebuttals and the like, but that would quickly turn this page into a sprawling, unappealing mess. I think making each threat an article (keeping this page the same--I like the list) would serve that purpose the best. As I said, I will do that as soon as someone gives me the okay. -- Ferguson 23:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC) :::Ok, that makes more sense. Expanding each section into more advanced articles is a good idea. Go for it. I just didn't want this to be abandoned. Chadlupkes 05:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC) I think that some of the redlinks (like data mining) on the page could be turned into glossary pages. We could also toss a link to the Category:Glossary on the mainpage once we fill it up with some political terms and their definitions. Jfing[[Wikipedia:User:Jfingers88/Esperanza|'e']]rs88 22:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC) About the reference to Nazi Germany Well, in case you all didn't get it. Germany, as was also the French Republic, or, France as it is called nowadays, was on the brink of transition from a totalitarian (monarchic) system to what was called one of the first social democratic systems in the world. Then came the world wide clash and by that extremist groups emerged, foremost driven by local an also foreign major companies. To state that Nazi Germany was a threat to democracy is plainly wrong. France had X times a revolution following the other whilst finally submerging to what is now called a democratic society. With that being said, the real threat to our so-called democracies are the global players out there with their lobbying against the original statement in all of our fundamental rights set forth and manifested in our so-called constitutions. These global player, i.e. the economies that are actually a thriving and also a compelling motor of our so-called societies are actually also always also against the current status quo of the society. This was not always the case as I learned from some old people here in Germany who once owned companies, however, the corporate culture declined. More so, actually, and currently, German based companies seek out to redefine their status in the social body of the overall community. Therefore, it is always about economy that is actually acting disintegrating towards democracy. It is not just that there was a Nazi Germany from out of nowhere. It is actually that there was a world wide economy that was at the brink of collapse, and by that, it brought forward such notions as Nazi Germany.